HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. PRITHVI NATH PRASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -this is an appeal filed against order dated 4.11.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.1427 of 2001.

(2.) Mr. Harish Chander Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that due to reasons mentioned in ground No.6 of the grounds of appeal, the appellant could not appear before the District Forum and file reply to the complaint case. In ground No.6, the plea raised is as under: "6. That the appellant was proceeded against ex parte for the reason that it could not appear before the Forum as the said F. D. R. so made was by the Times Bank before its merger with the appellant-Bank and the entire records of Times Bank of whole of India as well as abroad were being maintained by a Central Agency at Mumbai. "

(3.) The District Forum has in the Zimini order dated 8.9.2003 after hearing arguments of the complainant found that the O. P. had not been duly served with the notice. The District Forum decided to issue notice afresh for 17.10.2003. The said notice was served through the courier service and the receipt of the notice has been placed on record of the complaint case as showing that the concerned official of the H. D. F. C. Bank signed the same along with the stamp, which is affixed therein though the same is quite faint. It is, however, not disputed that the Bank had received the notice and the copy of the complaint case.